HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-14 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesMAIL. REPLY TO:
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEST 88TIA AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
June 10, 1983
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
Please be advised of a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday,
June 14, 1983, at 8:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1• Ticon Inc. -- Rezoning Petitions - Discussion and
possible action to:
a) Rezone the southwest portion of the island located
west of City Iiall, south of Paradise Estates, east
of NW 94 Avenue and north of Tamarac Jewish Center
and Broward Neighbors, from R-1B to R-4A, Petition
#121-Z-82, by Temp.Ord. #1016. Second Reading.
b) Rezone the southwest and southeast portions of the
island located west of City Hall, south of Paradise
Estates, east of N1,4 94 Avenue and north of Tamarac
Jewish Center and Broward Neighbors, from R-lB to
Idl-10, Petition #22-Z-82, by Tem Ord. #1017.
Second Reading.
c) Rezone the northeast portion of the island located
west of City Hall, south of Paradise Estates, east
of N11 94 Avenue and north of Tamarac Jewish Center
and Broward --Neighbors, from R-IB to RM-5, Petition
#23-Z-82, bar Temp. Ord. #1018. Second Reading.
(tabled from 5/25/81)�
2. Slud e Farm - Discussion and possible action on
Resolution 83-150 regarding the eminent domain action
of the existing Municipal "Sludge Farm" located in
Land Section 7 of the City of Tamarac.
The Council may consider such other business as may come before it.
The public is invited to attend,
Pursuant to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No, 368:
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
Council with respect to any matter Considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Carol A. Evans
Assistant City
Clerk
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 1983
Cape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the meeting to order on Wednesday,
1 June 14, 1983 at 8:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck
Vice Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Philip B. Kravitz
Councilman David E. Krantz
Councilman Jack Stelzer (8:15 A.M.)
ALSO PRESENT:
Laura Z. Stuurmans, City Manager
Jon M. Henning, City Attorney
Patricia Marcurio, Secretary
Roslyn Brauner, Secretary
MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Falck called for a Moment
of Silent Meditation to commemorate Flag Day, followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Sludge Farm - Discussion and possible action on Resolution 83-150
regarding the Eminent Domain action of the existing Municipal
Sludge Farm located in Land Section 7 of the City of Tamarac.
tNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED
amended.
RESOLUTION NO. R-83-150.READOPTED
City Attorney Jon Henning stated that Council has a
copy of Temp. Reso. #2747 relating to the Sludge Farm lease condemna-
tion,which was discussed at the last meeting and the Resolution has
now been fully prepared for Council's examination and action.
Mr. Henning then read the Resolution by title, and C/M Krantz said
since the City is now considering entry into the 201 County Plan for
the disposal of waste water, would it be possible
to change line 15 on page 2 of the Resolution to read "for a period
of up to thirty months" in the event the City enters the 201 Program.
Mr. Hennina stated that he has some concern about this since a period of
up to three years was discussed with Council's authorization to
the City Attorney's office and the determination was made for thirty
months for the proceeding. The landowner would like to plan for the
property if the proceeding is successful as the City is asking for a lease
on it. Mr. Henning then said that if Council wishes to amend the
Resolution, he sees no problem.
C/M Krantz said that he would like Council to consider it.
Mayor Falck advised that in a previous motion, Council did indicate to
Mr. Ruf that he was to have some latitude up to thirty months and he
feels the point C/M Krantz is making is quite valid and the Resolution shoul
just say "for a period not to exceed thirty months".
C/M Krantz then MOVED to amend Temp. Reso. #2747 to change line 15 on
page 2 to read "up to thirty months". SECONDED by V/M Massaro.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
-1- 6/14/83
/rb
V/M Massaro then MOVED the adoption of Temp. Reso. #2747 as amended.
SECONDED by C/M Krantz. -- — —�
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
1. Ticon, Inc. - Rezoning Petitions - Discussion and possible action
to:
a) Rezone the southwest portion of the island located west of City
Hall, south of Paradise Estates, east of N.W. 94th Avenue and
north of Tamarac Jewish Center and Broward Neighbors, from R-lB
to R-4A, Petition #21-Z--82, by Temp. Ord. #1016. Second Reading.
b) Rezone the southwest and southeast portions of the island lo-
cated west of City Hall, south of Paradise Estates, east of
94th Avenue and north of Tamarac Jewish Center and Broward
Neighbors, from R-lB to RM--10, Petition #22--Z-82, by Temp. Ord.
#1017. Second Reading.
c) Rezone the northeast portion of the island located west of
City Hall, south of Paradise Estates, east of N.W. 94th Avenue
and north of Tamarac Jewish Center and Broward Neighbors,
from.R--lB to RM-5, Petition #23-Z-82, by Temp. Ord. 01018.
(tabled from 5/25/83)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a), b), and c),
DENIED on Second and Final
Reading.
Mr. Richard Potash,•of Tralins and Potash,stated that on May llth,Mr.
Julian Bryan, the land use planner associated with this project, was
before Council and gave a detailed report concerning the petitions which
are before Council today. The three petitions which were prepared in
conjunction with the City staff, call for development of this property
with a density of slightly less than ten units per acre overall. For
the convenience of the City, he said,this has been broken down into three
separate petitions which must be considered as a whole to allow for
the development of the different lifestyles proposed in the community.
The total number of units for all three petitions would be 453 and the
master Land Use Plan allows as many as 461 units for this parcel.
Mr. Potash reminded Council that this matter has been pending for a
period of over a year and first came before the Planning Commission
.ate last year when recommended approval was unanimous. The necessary
land use restrictions have already been accomplished, the developer has
agreed upon restricted covenants at the City's request, and the de-
velopment is now 100% in accordance with the master Land Use Plan of
the City and the County.
C/M Stelzer entered the meeting at 8:15.
Richard Rubin, City Planner, presented the history of the land
use for this property as developed through today. He stated that
when the City originally submitted Land Use Plans to Broward County
for incorporation into the County P1an,which was eventually adopted in 1977
the City showed this parcel of land as five units per acre. Broward
County Planning Council accepted that land use designation. Mr. Rubin
then bhowed,on a map, the parcel of land as adopted by the County, and
stated that approximately two years after that date, the City Council
and,the Planning Commission of Tamarac were considering adopting their
Land Use Plan, as submitted to the County, for certification, which means
that it is in conformance with the County's Land Use Plan.
-2- 6/14/83
/rb
Mr. Rubin said that during the public hearing process, the applicant
submitted a proposal to increase the density from five to ten units
per acre. He showed the drawing submitted on the map and stated that
the Planning Commission reviewed the plan and recommended to Council
that the Land Use Plan be increased from five units per acre to five
to ten units per acre. Shortly after adoption of the Land Use Plan, the
City rezoned the property from "Industrial" to "Single Family R-lB".
rZr. Rubin said that according to the County Charter, the City can be more
restrictive than the County in its zoning, and several years ago
there was a Council determination that R-lB was consistent with the
City's Land Use Plan and this parcel was so zoned.
Mr. Rubin said this was the history up until last July when the applicant
submitted the rezoning again. When it was first submitted, it was noted
that there was a public park shown on the parcel in the original Land
Use Plan as it was certified. The developer indicated that he did not
want to see a public park there and wanted to provide private recreational
facilities and it was determined by the legal counsel and the City Planner
that there was a need for a Land Use Amendment to remove the park from
the parcel. Mr. Rubin stated it took over six months to make this change
and that is one of the reasons why the rezoning of this proposal has
taken over a year; the City had to first clear up our Land Use Plan
in order to allow the applicant to proceed with the rezoning.
Mr. Rubin said the second drawing would give Council a closer understanding
of the property as it exists today. The top drawing showed the zoning as
R-lB and approximately 46.1 acres in size; north of the area, although the
zoning is 4--RA, there are single family homes called Paradise Estates on the
northeast corner and on the northwest are Fairmont Patio Homes.On the_Boauth
end is commercially designated B-6 and then R-2 on the southeast corner
and the City Hall at the east side of the parcel. lie referred to the next
drawing which showed the Land Use as it is on the City Plan as low -medium
5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. He referred to. the bottom drawing which
showed the proposed three rezonings. Two parcels were supposed to be
rezoned to RM-10 at the north, west and southeast corner; the southwest
corner is proposed to be zoned to R-4A and the northeast corner is proposed
to be zoned to R-3. Mr. Rubin said there are covenants proposed and
submitted to the applicant for all those parcels, as requested by the
Planning Commission in order to assure the City that the maximum density for
the entire parcel will not exceed 9.8 dwelling units per acre.
V/M Massaro then asked Mr. Rubin how many access roads were proposed to
serve the entire development. Mr. Rubin replied that at this time it
is uncertain what the developer's plans are since this is a rezoning.
He showed that the drawing indicates one access point at N.W. 91 Avenue
and another access point at N.W. 58 Street which are proposed to lead
up to this property. Present plans show one as a primary access road,
which would be N.W. 91 Avenue going to Commercial Boulevard and a road
for emergency vehicles at N.W. 58 Street.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Rubin whether he considered the road at N.W. 91 AvenuE
to be adequate. He said that he is uncertain as the parcel was not re-
viewed in terms of traffic access since this is just a rezoning.
V/M Massaro said she feels that at 57 Street turn lanes would be required
and that involves considerable work.
Mr. Rubin said that normally a review is made at site plan review as to
whether left or right turn lanes are required and this has not as yet
been done. V/M Massaro asked what type of housing is now being proposed
at the north perimeter of this project and Mr. Rubin explained that on the
northeast corner, the drawing shows detached villas or horizontal condomin-
iums. Across the canal from that would be single family lots for single de-
tached homes, similar to the villas in the Woodmont area, which are about
ten feet apart from each other. At the northwest corner, he said, the drawin
shows two-story garden apartments along the waterway.
V/M Massaro stated that she felt this is poor planning on the developer's
part because the one-story patio homes will be across from it which
Fairmont is intending to build. She said at one time Mr. Tralins and
Mr. Caporella indicated that the County made an impact study for the
applicants of this rezoning. She then asked Mr. Rubin whether this was
a Trips Study or a BIZ study.
-3- 6/14/83
/rb
Mr. Rubin advised that this is a Trips Study which
computerized model studying the amount of traffic
entering any site and there is an extensive amount
in this study.
is a brand new
leaving or
of analysis included
In answer to the City Attorney's request to explain both a Trips and a BIZ
study,Mr. Rubin explained that it has been determined all residential
developments generate traffic out ofthe area and commercial
developments attract traffic. The County has determined that there are
many roads in the County that are over -capacity and the only way the
roads could accept new traffic from the new developments is to exact a
fee for the construction of improvements to the regional roadways.
The Trips model is a very sophisticated attempt to analyze all the cars
leaving a residential development and showing how they go along the
regional roadways up to five miles away from the site, and as they
impact each road.the Trips model picks up the possible fee that would
be required to contribute to the cost of improving the road to accept
the additional traffic. Mr. Rubin stated that this concept has been
upheld by many courts.
Mr. Henning inquired as to the difference between the two models.
Mr. Rubin said that the BIZ. model was completed and used for
two or three years and then over the last year the County has been
preparing the Trips model, which was completed during the Spring of
this year. The date of the program is April 6, 1983.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Rubin whether this study includes University Drive
within Tamarac. and he said it did not.
V/M Massaro said the County has plans to widen University Drive at the
south side of Commercial Boulevard, and plans are ready for University
Drive from Southgate Boulevard to Riverside Drive in Coral Springs,
but nothing is included for Tamarac.
Mr. Rubin advised that all the roads being impacted by this development
were outside the City.
V/M Massaro asked why no preparation was included in the study for the
area through Tamarac from Commercial Boulevard through Southgate Blvd. She
questioned if there is a need on the south side through Sunrise and
other cities and then Coral Springs on the north why is the Tamarac area
where the need is desparate, not included in the study? She also
questioned whether the Trips study could be accurate without including
that information.
V/M Massaro then asked Mr. Rubin whether this study includes Nob Hill Road
from McNab.'Road to Commercial Boulevard and he replied that this is not
included in the model either.
V/M Massaro stated that south of Commercial Boulevard, there is a 600
acre development under construction in Sunrise which is almost completed.
Kore importantly, Kings Point in Tamarac is developing a 5,000+ unit
project to the north and are committed to widen Nob Hill Road to six
lanes north of McNab Road. With Sunrise Theater being on the south
side of Commercial Boulevard, she inquired how the people at
Kings Point and the people in that area will get there if no street is
being planned between McNab and Commercial Boulevard. She then said
it is inconceivable to her that these important issues are not
addressed in this Trips Study and it appears that this study does not
cover the needs of Tamarac ,the needs that would be created`and
aggravated by the impact of these additional units.
-4- 6/14/83
/rb
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Rubin whether this study includes the additional
need for traffic lights, possibly at 57 Street and 91 Avenue.
Mr. Rubin stated that this would be the primary road leaving the
project going south to Commercial Boulevard and there is certainly a
need for a,traffic light in that location.
V/M Massaro then asked about 91 Avenue and Commercial Boulevard. Mr.
Rubin said that most of the traffic will continue south to Commercial
Boulevard. V/M Massaro stated that at practically every intersection
along Commercial Boulevard where there are no traffic lights, there have
been accidents since we have vendors at.pr,actic,ally every one of those
intersections. Mr. Rubin stated this is correct and the situation is
being reviewed.
V/M Massaro then inquired about 94 Avenue and 57 Street and Mr. Rubin
said there are no traffic lights contemplated there. She also asked
about 94 Avenue and 58 Street which would present a problem if the
street were opened for emergency use only; it is difficult to have an
emergency street without a traffic light. Mr. Rubin said there cer-
tainly would be some confusion there.
V/M Massaro then said that 57 Street and 88 Avenue has been in need of
a traffic light for some time now and with this additional impact, the
need will become desperate. Mr. Rubin said that most of the traffic
will be going east either at 57 Street or at Commercial at 88 Avenue.
V/M Massaro asked then about 94 Avenue and Commercial Boulevard and
Mr. Rubin said there was no proposal for a traffic light at this time
and he did not understand why it was not included in the study.
Mr. Rubin informed the Council that the total fee for this study came
to $32,668.00, which amounts to approximately $72.00 per unit and is
substantially less than any other traffic fees required from developers
in surrounding cities. He said he did not understand why it was so
low and in speaking with County planners, it was suggested that this
needs a review since there are bugs in the system and it generally
takes one or two runs to check out every area. He said he felt the model
should be reviewed in terms of what is being provided in Tamarac, as
well as the traffic light situation. He s.aid.he is disappointed in
the study and if he had the time he would have another one prepared by
hand, with each line being checked by an engineer.
C/M Krantz asked that consideration be given to the current traffic
impact at the Tamarac Jewish Center, which is directly south of the
proposed development on the other side of the little bridge which would
go into the Ticon development. He pointed out that at present, the
Temple has 1200 families as members and at Friday night services they
have up to 500 people there and on Saturdays up to 800, which means
there are hundreds of cars going in and out on those days. During the
Yom Kippur services last October, they serviced 2600 people in one day
and policemen were needed to control the traffic there. Six days a
week, the Center is used as a meeting place for various organizations
which also means hundreds of cars going in and out. These cars use
91 Avenue because the Temple's driveway goes right into 91 Avenue.
All this prevails before a development even exists.
C/M Krantz stated that he wanted the situation at the Tamarac Jewish
Center to go into the record.
Mr. Rubin said that at this time it has not been determined whether
there would be a different access road to and from Tamarac Jewish Center.
-5- 6/14/83
/rb
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Rubin whether this project will require seawalls.
He replied that the City Code states seawalls are required. She asked
Mr. Henning whether zoning is mandated or discretionary.
Mr. Henning said that he sent a memo to Council yesterday setting
certain guidelines; zoning had been a single process for a long time
during which land use was considered at the zoning stage. Now the
zoning process and planning process have been separated and the two
prdcedures are the Land Use Plan and the zoning of the individual parcels.
He stated that the area under discussion now was considered at the Land
Use Planning stage and that is where five to ten units came up. Right
now the Land Use Plan which the City had certified by the County, in-
dicates that this is designated as five to ten units. The zoning today
is five units and is in conformance with the hand Use Plan. The City
Attorney said the request for rezoning is discretionary and is a judicial
decision wherein the City Council sits as judges in a sense, to deter-
mine the merits and the demerits of the application as it affects this
community. The decision of rezoning this property to increased den-
sity is lawful and is within Council's jurisdiction to do. Mr. Henning
stated that in some areas the City has had zonings which have been man-
dated because the zoning was inconsistent with the Land Use Plan, but this
is a unique instance in a sense because the present zoning is consistent
with the Land Use Plan and the proposed rezoning is also in conformance
with the Land Use Plan.
V/M Massaro said she believes the request for this rezoning is premature.
Mr. Henning said he would like to clarify the situation up to this point.
He stated that Council is aware that a court action is pending in this
case. There.are two writs that were petitioned by Ticon, Inc., one is
a Writ of Mandamus and one is a Writ of Prohibition. He stated the
Mandamus is a request that the City perform a ministerial function, which
is this hearing. Ticon has stated that the hearing has been delayed and
they want Council to move forward and proceed, which is obviously what
is being done now. He further explained that the Writ of Prohibition
addresses the fees or funds requested and discussed between Ticon and
the City. The Council Action Report states that the first readings
of these Ordinances were approved subject to payment of certain fees.
There has been a "Show Cause" order entered in this case which will be
heard by the court in two days. Mr. Henning said that after discussions
with Mr. Potash and Mr. Tralins, on behalf of Ticon, Inc., he felt all
were in agreement that this City Council is precluded by that court
action from assessing any fees or funds that were discussed at the first
reading.
Tape The City Attorney then stated that, as mentioned in his memo, one of
2 the alternatives could be that Council would pass this with the under-
standing that these fees would be paid, and he recommended that this
not be done. The court order states that Council is prohibited to
assess any particular fees today as a condition of this rezoning.
That would leave two alternatives; either the passing of the Ordinances
and approving the rezonings, or denial of the petitions and the
Ordinances.
Mr. Henning pointed out that this is not similar to a moratorium as
regardless of whether Council goes for or against the rezonings, the
petitioner, Ticon, Inc., has the opportunity to use his land and he will
not be deprived of his land either way.
-6- 6/14/83
/rb
Mr. John Hansen, Director of Planning for Williams, Hatfield & Stoner,
consultants for the City of Tamarac, was questioned by the City Attorney
as to whether he has had the opportunity to review the documents pre-
sented here today as well as the land in question. Mr. Hansen ad-
vised that he had prepared these documents; and the overall plan will
now be referred to as Exhibit A and the three-part document as Exhibit B.
He said he went out to see the area and verifies all that was said here
today and went to the Temple while services were being conducted on a
Saturday morning and the parking was overflowing into the streets.
At peak hours,there will be a lot of traffic generating from the Temple
and the additional 453 proposed units would add to the impact. Mx.
Hansen said he agreed with Mr. Henning that if these petitions are passed,
it would be necessary in the future to make a study of the ingress/egress
of the property. He pointed out that the Trips model might have dropped
off some streets which are presently below capacity in terms of trips
per day. Mr. Henning asked if this could be addressed at the site plan
stage and Mr. Hansen said it could and should be.
Mr. Henning then inquired as to whether Mr. Hansen felt he could place
an estimate at this time on the cost of the necessary improvements.
Mr. Hansen said he feels it would be unfair at this time to the City
and the petitioner to do so without adequate study. He said these
impacts could be addressed when the final site plan is processed
as someone could come in before then to make some changes that would
affect the cost of the improvements.
Mr. Henning then referred to the discussion he had yesterday with
Mr. Potash and summarized that the City has a litigation which is a
non --jury procedure in the Circuit Court and two possibilities exist to
be considered today. He said he felt that by expediting this hearing,
the Mandamus problem raised by the petitioner would be satisfied. The
Prohibition problem will be discussed in the court and Mr. Potash stated
yesterday that if Council goes along with the second alternative of
passing on the rezoning and approving it without assessing any fees
today, his client would be willing to sign the standard developers contract.
The City Attorney said the impact fees would then be addressed at site
plan review with no vested rights as of today; and consequently the
Prohibition wou0:d then be satisfied and -the case would voluntarily be
dismissed.
Carl Alper, resident, stated that since at the last hearing the petitioner
said he objected to payment of any impact fees, there would be no benefit
to the City to approve the rezoning. He felt it would be much easier to
keep the zoning at five and avoid all problems.
City Attorney Henning said in the past staff tried to estimate the fee
and in this case staff felt the estimate was close enough. However,
the petitioner said it was not acceptable.
a) Mr. Henning read Temp. Ord. #1016 by title and V/M Massaro said she
would like to clarify .the .,
e fact that although there are six lanes on
University Drive at the areas indicated, in reality the use of six lanes
is impossible because when it rains heavily University Drive cannot be
used at all through Tamarac in some areas. When University Drive is
widened to the southern boundary of Commercial Boulevard and from 5outhaate
Boulevard, lights and drainage will be installed, but that will not be
done in Tamarac. There will be a good road to the north and a good road
to the south but the cars will be unable to get through Tamarac and a
bottleneck will exist.
V/M Massaro said in her opinion this request for rezoning is premature
and she MOVED that Petition #21--Z-82, Tea. Ord. #1016 be DENIED.
SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
-7- 6/14/83
/rb
Mr. Potash said the questions raised today are traditionally raised at
site plan reviews and not rezoning petitions. He said the problems
that exist are there today without the development and Ticon can
develop the property without these rezoning petitions. Mr. Potash.
said Mr. Bryan had stated at the May 11, 1983 meeting that it would
be discussed further with staff. He said the impact is going to be
there whether it is one unit an acre or ten and if Council denies these
petitions his client still has property that they own that is zoned
for development; and whether they are approved or not, and regardless
of the density of the development, his client will be paying fees but
felt Council was changing priorities by conditioning the zoning on an
Agreement to pay these fees in advance before the site plan review had
taken place and objects to that. Mr. Potash said a petition for Writ
of Mandamus was filed to spur Council to act one way or the other.
The Council had adopted, some years ago, an Ordinance mandating action
within a certain time frame after a public hearing and that did not occur.
He said the Prohibition part of the litigation was to prohibit the Council
from conditioning the grant of the rezoning on the payment of a specified
dollar amount per unit or overall for the project as "impact fees".
Mr. Potash said that there was no State Statute or City Ordinance that
permitted the Council to condition a rezoning approval or disapproval
on the payment of fees. If Council approves the rezoning applications
and acts favorably towards the proposed development for purposes of
rezoning, there would be no reason for the suit to continue and Ticon
would be ready and willing to enter into the standard Developers Agreement
with the City concerning the vested rights of Ticon, and the impact fees
that are lawfully assessed by Ordinance, will be paid. He said the two
roads for access to this property must be constructed to be in accordance
with the plat that has already been granted for the property.
V/M Massaro said she wished to state the reasons for her Motion. All
the conferences mentioned here today were held at the request of the
developer and not the City. Council is not refusing the developer
the right to develop his property as it is zoned today, but because
problems do exist, Council is trying to avoid any additional problems
that might arise if the rezoning is granted. She said .the City pre-
viously thought that an agreement was reached during the conferences
and that a Developers Agreement would be prepared by the developer's
attorney and the City Attorney, for Council's consideration. That
has not been accomplished and if the City was unable to come to an
agreement with the developer about the rezoning, she said she doubted
that an agreement could be reached with the developer later.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
b) City Attorney Jon Henning read the Resolution by title and
V/M Massaro said she saw no point in repeating everything that was
said previously and that it will suffice to say that all previous
statements shall apply to Petition #22-Z-82. She also stated that
she feels the request for this rezoning is premature and MOVED
that Petition #22-Z-82, Tem . Ord. #1017, be DE14SED. SECO14DED
by C/M Krantz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
c) City Attorney Jon Henning read the Resolution by title and
V/M Massaro then requested that all previous statements and questions
-8- 6/14/83
/rb
be applied to Petition #23-Z-82 and that in her opinion the request
for rezoning is premature. She MOVED that Petition #23-Z-82,
Temp. Ord. #1018, be DENIED. SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 A.M.
A
ATTEST:
SSISTANT CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $100..94
or $ 2.80 per copy, to inform the general public and
public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations
by the City Council of the City of Tamarac.
-9- 6/14/83
/rb
API'FtO�VjED AT Py°iTll�r_�.